Philippe Gerum wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> >>>> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) >>>> >>>> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>> >>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>>>>> > Therefore we need a dedicated function to re-enable interrupts in >>>>>> the > ISR. We could name it *_end_irq, but maybe *_enable_isr_irq is >>>>>> more > obvious. On non-PPC archs it would translate to *_irq_enable. >>>>>> I > realized, that *_irq_enable is used in various place/skins and >>>>>> therefore > I have not yet provided a patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> The function xnarch_irq_enable seems to be called in only two >>> >>> functions, >>> >>>>>> xintr_enable and xnintr_irq_handler when the flag XN_ISR_ENABLE is >>>>>> set. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, since I am not sure if this has to be done at the Adeos >>>>>> level or in Xenomai, we will wait for Philippe to come back and >>>>>> decide. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ->enable() and ->end() all mixed up illustrates a silly x86 bias I >>>>> once >>>>> had. We do need to differentiate the mere enabling from the IRQ >>>>> epilogue >>>>> at PIC level since Linux does it - i.e. we don't want to change the >>>>> semantics here. >>>>> >>>>> I would go for adding xnarch_end_irq -> rthal_irq_end to stick with >>>>> the >>>>> Linux naming scheme, and have the proper epilogue done from there on a >>>>> per-arch basis. >>>>> >>>>> Current uses of xnarch_enable_irq() should be reserved to the >>>>> non-epilogue case, like xnintr_enable() i.e. forcibly unmasking the >>>>> IRQ >>>>> source at PIC level outside of any ISR context for such interrupt (*). >>>>> XN_ISR_ENABLE would trigger a call to xnarch_end_irq, instead of >>>>> xnarch_enable_irq. I see no reason for this fix to leak to the Adeos >>>>> layer, since the HAL already controls the way interrupts are ended >>>>> actually; it just does it improperly on some platforms. >>>>> >>>>> (*) Jan, does rtdm_irq_enable() have the same meaning, or is it >>>>> intended >>>>> to be used from the ISR too in order to revalidate the source at PIC >>> >>> level? >>> >>>> Nope, rtdm_irq_enable() was never intended to re-enable an IRQ line >>>> after an interrupt, and the documentation does not suggest this either. >>>> I see no problem here. >>> >>> But RTDM needs a rtdm_irq_end() functions as well in case the >>> user wants to reenable the interrupt outside the ISR, I think. >> >> >> If this is a valid use-case, it should be really straightforward to add >> this abstraction to RTDM. We should just document that rtdm_irq_end() >> shall not be invoked from IRQ context - > > It's the other way around: ->end() would indeed be called from the ISR > epilogue, and ->enable() would not.
I think we are talking about different things: Wolfgang was asking for an equivalent of RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE outside the IRQ handler. That's the user API. You are now referring to the back-end which had to provide some end-mechanism to be used both by the nucleus' ISR epilogue and that rtdm_irq_end(), and that mechanism shall be told apart from the IRQ enable/disable API. Well, that's at least how I think to have got it... > > to avoid breaking the chain in >> the shared-IRQ scenario. RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE must remain the way to >> re-enable the line from the handler. >> >> Jan >> >> > > Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
